If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. Imran Khan wasn't just a skillful bowler but an intimidating one too which is the biggest reason for his success and at the end of the day, it's about who was more successful instead of who has how many wickets.

Also, Imran played ODI's at a time when there were 60 overs and batsmen were extremely careful and played at the pace of a snail, compared to Wasim Akram.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. Imran Khan wasn't just a skillful bowler but an intimidating one too which is the biggest reason for his success and at the end of the day, it's about who was more successful instead of who has how many wickets.

Also, Imran played ODI's at a time when there were 60 overs and batsmen were extremely careful and played at the pace of a snail, compared to Wasim Akram.

Akram is arguably the greatest ODI cricketer of all time. Pakistan won the 92 world cup mainly because of his pinch hitting and bowling in the final. In an era where the batsmen would try to score big esp in the beginning and end of the innings to have an economy of less than 4 is amazing.
Even Khan admits that Akram was a more skillful and a better bowler than him

Akram is arguably the greatest ODI cricketer of all time. Pakistan won the 92 world cup mainly because of his pinch hitting and bowling in the final. In an era where the batsmen would try to score big esp in the beginning and end of the innings to have an economy of less than 4 is amazing.
Even Khan admits that Akram was a more skillful and a better bowler than him

Viv Richards is, followed by Sachin. Akram would come next.

If there is a better batsman than Sachin then he hasnít arrived yet: Viv Richards

Did I saw Gayle in that list ahead of any current generation player except Steyn?

Yes. And very much justified. Two triples in Tests, a whole lot of tons in ODI's including a 200 (in a WC match) and 2 centuries in t/20's. Also a very capable bowler with 2 5ers, IIRC. God knows how much more he would have achieved in the last 3 years had he not been deprived of his post-prime years when he was still a top batsman. Deserves it.

Any list that rates this dude as the greatest cricketer to ever live can't be taken seriously lmao.

I don't agree with him being in the list but that photo was taken when he was well past 50 and gained a lot of weight.. I don't have numbers handy but he has dominated FC circuit (test standard those days) for a decade more than Bradman

Any list that rates this dude as the greatest cricketer to ever live can't be taken seriously lmao.

Exactly lmao. An average of 32 isn't too shabby but not GOAT level. I don't understand why these old players get so much importance despite mediocre numbers. Sure, Bradman has Godly, unparalleled stats but the rest of these guys don't fit the bill. Average cricketers.

Yes. And very much justified. Two triples in Tests, a whole lot of tons in ODI's including a 200 (in a WC match) and 2 centuries in t/20's. Also a very capable bowler with 2 5ers, IIRC. God knows how much more he would have achieved in the last 3 years had he not been deprived of his post-prime years when he was still a top batsman. Deserves it.

If you look at the list, most of them are from older generation era.Among those who debuted post 2000s, only Sangakkara and Sehwag are there. Now Gayle is a good test batsmen( career AVG of 41) and a very good OdI bat but he won't even make up among top 5 players of his own era.

Would you have Gayle ahead of likes of AB, KP, Clarke, Hayden,Younis, Amla or even Smith/Kohli irrespective of any format?

If you look at the list, most of them are from older generation era.Among those who debuted post 2000s, only Sangakkara and Sehwag are there. Now Gayle is a good test batsmen( career AVG of 41) and a very good OdI bat but he won't even make up among top 5 players of his own era.

Would you have Gayle ahead of likes of AB, KP, Clarke, Hayden,Younis, Amla or even Smith/Kohli irrespective of any format?

First of all, I would like to correct you, Gayle averages 42 in Tests.

Secondly, Amla just had a very good purple patch and an extended peak. The rest have always dominated one format, other than AB who's been good but not GOAT material. Smith and Kohli are barely the best of their own genaration with the level of competition.

Also, Gayle has big things to show, like I said before. Two triples, a WC 200, most centuries by any batsman in the T20i format and even his style of play. He could've achieved so much more had he not been deprived of these recent years. He'd be recognized as an ATG even on this forum. Unfortunately, we on PP only remember recent events.

Any-who, this list includes people like WG Grace who did not have amazing international careers but mind blowing First Class careers and going by that, Gayle deserves to be on this list solely on the basis of his Twenty20 career because trust me when I say this, Christopher Henry Gayle is LIGHT YEARS and I repeat LIGHT YEARS ahead of his contemporaries in the Twenty20 format.

Typical response from an Indian fan. How dare anyone rate Lara above Sachin.

Let me tell you one thing...I am not biased. My fav Indian batsman ever is Sehwag. I even rate Dravid higher than Sachin. As for Lara...there was no one more classier to watch. Singlehandedy won games for WI's.

Inzy was widely considered one of the greats of his gen just below Tendulkar, Ponting and Lara. That's the consensus among cricketers, cricket writers and analysts and so on. If Gayle makesi t on, Inzy was a far superior test batsman. YK is even batter from a purely statistical analysis and one of the best in the 21st century when it comes to numbers alone, which is what Benedict seems obsessed with.

So yeah, I can see them not being on the list if players who achieved far less didn't make it on. Since they have, these 2 should be there too.

First of all, I would like to correct you, Gayle averages 42 in Tests.

Secondly, Amla just had a very good purple patch and an extended peak. The rest have always dominated one format, other than AB who's been good but not GOAT material. Smith and Kohli are barely the best of their own genaration with the level of competition.

Also, Gayle has big things to show, like I said before. Two triples, a WC 200, most centuries by any batsman in the T20i format and even his style of play. He could've achieved so much more had he not been deprived of these recent years. He'd be recognized as an ATG even on this forum. Unfortunately, we on PP only remember recent events.

Any-who, this list includes people like WG Grace who did not have amazing international careers but mind blowing First Class careers and going by that, Gayle deserves to be on this list solely on the basis of his Twenty20 career because trust me when I say this, Christopher Henry Gayle is LIGHT YEARS and I repeat LIGHT YEARS ahead of his contemporaries in the Twenty20 format.

A WC 200 vs Zimbabwe is good but not something to be proud of. Irrespective of how many triple hundreds he has, he avgs 42 in tests and was pretty inconsistent performer.He is nothing more than just a good test cricketer and a great limited overs cricketer.Calling him ATG is a joke.

And as far as WC Grace is considered, the fact that he is remembered 100 years down the line and was the standout player of his era does mean something. However, anyone rating him at no.1 is just hilarious.And first class cricket requires lot of grit and temperament compared to the t20 format.

It's a joke to think that Gayle would be remembered 100 years down the line as one of the standout player of his era.

Inzy was widely considered one of the greats of his gen just below Tendulkar, Ponting and Lara. That's the consensus among cricketers, cricket writers and analysts and so on. If Gayle makesi t on, Inzy was a far superior test batsman. YK is even batter from a purely statistical analysis and one of the best in the 21st century when it comes to numbers alone, which is what Benedict seems obsessed with.

So yeah, I can see them not being on the list if players who achieved far less didn't make it on. Since they have, these 2 should be there too.

He has also put 50 other names who missed out from the top 100 list. So don't miss that.Quite a few from modern era are there in the list.

A WC 200 vs Zimbabwe is good but not something to be proud of. Irrespective of how many triple hundreds he has, he avgs 42 in tests and was pretty inconsistent performer.He is nothing more than just a good test cricketer and a great limited overs cricketer.Calling him ATG is a joke.

And as far as WC Grace is considered, the fact that he is remembered 100 years down the line and was the standout player of his era does mean something. However, anyone rating him at no.1 is just hilarious.And first class cricket requires lot of grit and temperament compared to the t20 format.

It's a joke to think that Gayle would be remembered 100 years down the line as one of the standout player of his era.

Perception then. Everyone has a right to their opinion and in this particular case, the writer thinks Gayle deserves it more than the names you've mentioned. But if you think Amla, AB or even KP deserve to be on list, then you are seriously delusional, my friend.

Perception then. Everyone has a right to their opinion and in this particular case, the writer thinks Gayle deserves it more than the names you've mentioned. But if you think Amla, AB or even KP deserve to be on list, then you are seriously delusional, my friend.

Of course, everyone has right to opinion but then as readers, we also have right to criticize if we have valid points.

And mate, I would love to know why you think that its delusional to think that Amla,AB or KP doesn't deserve to a list of 100 greatest cricketer?

I mean having them or not is a matter of personal choice but how does it becomes delusional if I or sm1 thinks these guys deserve to be in that list. Btw AB is there. So, there is no delusion w.r.t that.

Chanderpaul was the backbone of WI lineup for good 10 years post Lara.
Andy Flower was the reason Zimbabwe cricket achieved the heights they did till 2003.
KP has won England more games than ABD has. KP's innings had more impact, classy and usually came when he had very little support.

Like I said, I havent read the full list but Yousuf record breaker, Inzy, YK and Dhoni aren't? Yet lesser names are, some of who played cricket in an age where cricket wasn't even the cricket we see today. Crackedp itches, no tours outside Eng and Aus etc etc. I don't see how they get to be ranked above a number of these players. Then again, in England there is an obsession with the late 19th, early 20th century cricketers because that is the last time England produced genuine greats and the last time cricket was a genuinely empire based game.

There is a weird sense karmic justice in seeing Kallis rated above Imran on an all time list as t clean bowls a certain section of fans over playing the troll campaign against Sachin when compared to Kallis, all the more hilarious when SRT in fact happens to outdo both on the same list.

Lists always prone to subjective bias. Unfair to compare players who played pre T20 era when things were very different.

Anyhow, Lara should be in top 10, Waqar should be rated higher. If you are talking about impact then Waqar had a lot more impact on cricket than many higher rated players. Before Waqar it was difficult to imagine fast bowling which relied on a combination of searing pace, late swing and yorkers. Prior to that it was more about line and length and bounce.

Typical response from an Indian fan. How dare anyone rate Lara above Sachin.

Let me tell you one thing...I am not biased. My fav Indian batsman ever is Sehwag. I even rate Dravid higher than Sachin. As for Lara...there was no one more classier to watch. Singlehandedy won games for WI's.

Singlehandedly won games for WI ? if this is your reasoning , I guess you must have slept through most of the 90s and 2000s when Sachin was backpacking India through to Finals / Semi's of every world cup 1996,1999,2003 while killing Australia in Sharjah and in Australia .

I would have put Sachin 1 number on this list and before anyone starts losing their minds I'll explain my reasoning. I see a list like this compulated on the basis of many different factors so if I were to give 50 % importance to skills and 50% to what impact the person has had on the sport - Sachin undoubtedly has put modern Cricket on the World Map like no other. Bradman has not impacted the game on an international level but because he played in a different era with no social media or TV coverage, his legacy remains limited to the Australian's more.
I'd put Sachin combined for his game and bringing the game to the world and being the ambassador of the game. I don't see any other cricketer in this era to garner as much respect from non-cricketing athletes - Federer , Schumacher and his contemporaries.